Two Critiques of Proudhon and the Formation of Marx’s Labor Theory of Value

The scientific labor theory of value is the premise and foundation of Marx’s political economy, and its formation and development were influenced by multiple factors, such as specific socio-historical conditions and concrete intellectual resources. For a long time, bourgeois economics, especially the value theory of classical economics, as a direct intellectual resource, has received widespread attention from domestic and international academic circles in the study of the formation and development of Marx’s scientific theory of value. On October 13, 1851, Marx wrote in a letter to Engels: “You must tell me your opinion of Proudhon, even if briefly. I am now engaged in the study of economics and am therefore especially interested in this.” [1]1 Marx to Engels, October 13, 1851, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 38 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1982), p. 472. It can be seen that during his third study of political economy, Marx continued to pay close attention to Proudhon’s latest developments and theoretical viewpoints, even though in his 1847 work *The Poverty of Philosophy* he had judged Proudhon to be a theoretician doubly incompetent in both philosophy and economics. Therefore, deepening our understanding of the formation and development of Marx’s scientific theory of value requires, in terms of intellectual resources, not only attention to the influence of bourgeois economics’ value theory but also attention to the Proudhonian factor within it.

科学的劳动价值论是马克思政治经济学的前提和基础，其形成和发展受到多种因素的影响，比如特定的社会历史条件、具体的思想资源等。长期以来，资产阶级经济学，特别是古典经济学的价值理论，作为直接的思想资源，在马克思科学价值论理论的形成和发展研究中，受到国内外学界的广泛关注。1851年10月13日，马克思在致恩格斯的信中说道：“你必须把对蒲鲁东的看法告诉我，简单点也行。我现在正从事经济学的研究，所以对此尤其感兴趣。”可见，在马克思的第三次政治经济学研究中，他依然持续关注蒲鲁东的最新动态和理论观点，虽然在1847年的《哲学的贫困》中，他将蒲鲁东判定为在哲学上和经济学上双重无能的理论家。因此，深化对马克思科学价值理论形成和发展历程的认识，在思想资源方面，不仅需要关注资产阶级经济学的价值理论之影响，也需要重视其中的蒲鲁东因素。

Since the failure of the Paris Commune, Proudhon and his school have gradually declined. At the meeting of the French Philosophical Society on March 20, 2010, Professor Robert Damien of Paris West University Nanterre La Défense aptly summarized Proudhon’s situation in the current socialist lineage with the term “unbearable.” [2]2 Robert Damien, “Proudhon aujourd’hui,” *Bulletin de la Société Française de Philosophie* 104, no. 3 (2010): 5. It should be said that it is precisely this unbearable situation of Proudhon that has caused the intellectual relationship between Marx and Proudhon to remain, for a long period, in a state of being well-known rather than truly understood. To further deepen research, this article focuses on the critical period of Marx’s formation of the scientific theory of value, namely the late 1840s to the early 1850s. It attempts to center on *The Poverty of Philosophy* and the “Reflections” essay from the *London Notebooks*, [3]3 The *London Notebooks* are a series of excerpts and notes Marx made during his economic studies in London between 1850 and 1853. The “Reflections” essay is a short text within these notebooks, written in 1851, in which Marx critically engages with Proudhon’s monetary theories. to explore in detail the complex role and philosophical significance of the critique of Proudhon’s conception of money for Marx’s formulation of his own scientific theory of value.

自巴黎公社失败后，蒲鲁东及其学派逐渐式微。在2010年3月20日法国哲学会上，西巴黎拉德芳斯大学教授罗伯特·达缅用“令人不堪”一词精当地概括了蒲鲁东在当下社会主义谱系中的境况。应该说，正是蒲鲁东的这种不堪处境，使马克思同蒲鲁东的思想关系，在很长一段时期内都处于一种熟知而非真知的状态。为进一步深入研究，本文聚焦马克思形成科学价值论的关键时期，即19世纪40年代末到50年代初，尝试围绕《哲学的贫困》和《伦敦笔记》中的《反思》一文，详细探究批判蒲鲁东的货币观对于马克思制定自身科学价值理论的复杂作用及哲学意义。

I. Dual Stimulus: Proudhon’s Conception of Money and His People’s Bank Reform Practice

一、双重刺激：蒲鲁东的货币观及其人民银行改革实践

Although Soviet scholars G. A. Bagaturia and V. S. Vygotsky did not fully develop the study of the Proudhonian factor in the formation of Marx’s scientific theory of value, they noted that when Marx formed his own theory of value in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), “he began with a critique of Proudhon’s ‘labor money’ theory as a petty-bourgeois theory, essentially an exaggerated form of the bourgeois understanding of money and monetary circulation.” [4]4 G. A. Bagaturia and V. S. Vygotsky, *The Economic Content of the “Grundrisse”* (Moscow: Mysl, 1965), p. 112 (Russian edition). This suggests to us that to deeply explore the specific role and philosophical significance of the Proudhonian factor in the formation and development of Marx’s scientific theory of value, grasping Proudhon’s conception of money is a necessary theoretical prerequisite.

苏联学者格·阿·巴加图利亚和维·索·维戈茨基虽然没有充分展开马克思科学价值理论形成中的蒲鲁东因素研究，但他们注意到，马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中形成自己的价值理论时，“是以批判蒲鲁东的‘劳动货币’论是一种小资产阶级理论，实质上是资产阶级对货币和货币流通理解的夸张形式开始的”。这提示我们，深入探究蒲鲁东因素在马克思科学价值理论形成和发展中的具体作用及哲学意义，把握蒲鲁东的货币观是一个必要的理论前提。

In *The System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty*, Proudhon’s conception of money is systematically expounded. In essence, this is a conception of money based on his so-called theory of constituted value. After turning to the study of political economy, Proudhon learned from economists about the “duality” of value, namely use-value and exchange-value. Influenced by changes in competition and the relationship between supply and demand, use-value and exchange-value exhibit a phenomenon of inverse increase and decrease. Based on this, Proudhon believed that value is not merely a “dual” existence, as economists claim, but rather a “contradictory” existence; moreover, it is precisely because use-value and exchange-value always repel and struggle with each other that society produces a series of well-known problems such as market competition, overproduction, wealth disparity, and poverty. Since this is the case, in Proudhon’s view, the logical solution is to reconcile the contradiction between use-value and exchange-value and seek their “synthesis.” This synthesis is Proudhon’s invention, namely constituted value. Proudhon analogized wealth to an object in a state of chemical combination; use-value and exchange-value are like different elements within the object in a combined state, always participating in the combination in different proportions according to certain laws. Therefore, the so-called constituted value can be understood as the proportional relationship of use-value and exchange-value in the overall composition of wealth according to certain laws. In Proudhon’s view, we need not doubt whether value can reach a constituted state, because this is itself a tendency in the process of socio-economic development; what we need to do is to explore that force which can combine the various elements of wealth in a certain proportion to form a homogeneous whole of wealth. This force is precisely “labor,” which economists like Adam Smith once praised at length. After determining labor as the decisive factor of constituted value, Proudhon’s illusion was: for labor to become a guarantee of welfare and equality, “the value that labor exchanges or purchases can always only be equal to the value it itself contains.” [5]5 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, *System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty*, vol. 1 (Paris: Guillaumin, 1846), p. 67 (French edition). That is to say, there is no qualitative difference between different labors; as long as all products are exchanged according to the labor time they contain, use-value and exchange-value can be in a state of balance or coordination under any circumstances, and value naturally reaches its constituted state.

在《贫困的哲学》中，蒲鲁东的货币观得到较为系统的阐发。从本质上讲，这是一种以所谓的构成价值论为基础的货币观。在转向政治经济学研究之后，蒲鲁东从经济学家那里了解到价值的“两重性”,即使用价值和交换价值。受竞争和供求关系变化的影响，使用价值和交换价值会出现反比例增减的现象。据此，蒲鲁东认为，价值并非如经济学家所说的，只是一种“两重性”的存在,它更是一种“矛盾性”的存在；并且，正是由于使用价值和交换价值总是相互排斥、相互斗争，社会中才会产生人所共知的市场竞争、产品过剩、财富悬殊和贫困现象等一系列问题。既然如此，在蒲鲁东看来，合乎逻辑的解决思路就是：调和使用价值和交换价值的矛盾，寻求两者的“合题”,而这个合题便是蒲鲁东的发明，即构成价值。蒲鲁东把财富类比为因某种化学作用而处于化合状态的物体，使用价值和交换价值则如同处于化合状态的物体内的不同元素一般，它们总是按照一定的规律以不同的比例参与化合。因此，所谓的构成价值，其实可以理解为使用价值和交换价值按照一定的规律在财富整体组成中的比例关系。在蒲鲁东看来，我们无需对价值能否达到构成状态感到怀疑，因为这本身就是社会经济发展过程中的倾向,我们所要做的是探索那种能够按照一定比例把财富的各种元素配合起来组成一个同质的财富整体的力量,而这种力量正是亚当·斯密等经济学家曾经大费笔墨加以称颂的“劳动”。在把劳动确定为构成价值的决定性因素后，蒲鲁东产生的幻想是：劳动要成为福利和平等的保证，“劳动所交换或购买到的价值始终只能等于它本身所包含的价值”。也就是说，不同的劳动并不存在质的区别，只要使一切产品都按照它们包含的劳动时间进行交换，使用价值与交换价值就能够在任何情况下都处于平衡或协调状态,价值自然也就达到了构成状态。

Proudhon believed that precious metal money is both an important example of constituted value and the first commodity in which value reaches its constituted state. This is because the value of precious metals is determined by the quantity of labor required to produce them, and in actual exchange, it is based on the value of the precious metals themselves. According to Proudhon’s understanding, the historical development of precious metals into money gives them the following two characteristics: First, precious metal money, like all other commodities, “is a token representing labor, by virtue of which it can serve as a common standard of valuation and as a medium of exchange.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 72. Second, unlike all other commodities, precious metal money was the first to detach itself from a “series,” thereby monopolizing the functional privilege of serving as a means of exchange. In Proudhon’s view, because precious metal money monopolizes the privilege of being the universal means of exchange, its existence becomes an obstacle to realizing the principle of equality. Therefore, in *The Philosophy of Poverty*, although Proudhon identified precious metal money as an example of constituted value, he was not satisfied with the reality of precious metal money. Instead, he was committed to reconstructing the “series,” attempting to bring precious metal money, which had detached from the “series,” back to the “true principle of money,” that is, the law of constituted value. As already stated, this essentially requires that all products, like precious metal money, be exchanged directly according to the labor time consumed in their production. In this sense, Proudhon’s conception of money, based on the so-called theory of constituted value, can also be called the “labor money conception.” Its essence is to replace precious metal money with “labor money,” dissolve the privilege of precious metal money, and thereby achieve the direct exchange of products for products.

蒲鲁东认为，贵金属货币既是构成价值的重要例证，也是价值达到构成状态的第一种商品。这是因为，贵金属的价值是由生产贵金属的劳动量决定的，并且在实际的交换中也是基于贵金属自身的价值进行的。根据蒲鲁东的理解，贵金属在历史发展过程中成为货币，使它具有以下两点特性：第一，贵金属货币同其他一切商品一样，“是一种代表劳动的标志，凭这一点它就可以作为共同的估值标准，作为交易的中介物”。第二，不同于其他一切商品，贵金属货币率先从“某一系列”中脱离出来，因而垄断了充当交换手段的职能特权。在蒲鲁东看来，贵金属货币独占了普遍交换手段的特权，它的存在便成了实现平等原则的阻碍。所以，在《贫困的哲学》中，蒲鲁东虽然将贵金属货币指认为构成价值的例证，但他并没有因此而满足于贵金属货币的现实，而是致力于重建“系列”,试图将脱离“系列”的贵金属货币重新引回到“货币的真正原理”,即构成价值规律上。已如前述，这其实就是要求一切产品都像贵金属货币那样，按照它们在生产中消耗的劳动时间直接进行交换。在这个意义上，以所谓构成价值论为基础的蒲鲁东货币观，也可被称为“劳动货币观”,其实质是以“劳动货币”替代贵金属货币，消解贵金属货币的特权，从而实现产品同产品的直接交换。

Needless to say, Proudhon’s labor-money view has a distinct utopian character, but in the formation of Marx’s scientific theory of value, this monetary view cannot be taken lightly. This is because Proudhon’s labor-money view consciously absorbed the value theory of classical economists such as Ricardo, thereby creating a semblance of “science.” On November 1, 1846, the Russian writer Pavel Annenkov, in a letter to Marx, expressed admiration for the economic views in Proudhon’s book *The Philosophy of Poverty*, which attests to the deceptive nature of his views. It is worth noting that if one compares the two characteristics of money that Proudhon distilled in that book with Marx’s relevant exposition in Volume I of *Capital*, there is no lack of similarity between them. Although similarity does not imply identity, it is perhaps precisely because Marx was aware of this similarity that, in the first German edition of Volume I of *Capital*, he went to great lengths to extend the analysis of the value form to the so-called “fourth value form.” Marx points out: “If every commodity were to confront all other commodities as the universal equivalent form by making its natural form the universal equivalent form, then all commodities would deprive all commodities of the universal equivalent form, and thereby deprive themselves of the socially valid expression of their magnitude of value.” [7]7 Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 1, Section 3, on the form of value. The “fourth value form” refers to Marx’s analysis of the money form as a development of the general equivalent form. It is not difficult to see that, logically, this “universalizing” analysis of the universal equivalent form directly targets the illusions about money held by Proudhon and others. Evidently, even in the *Capital* period, when Marx had already formulated his scientific theory of value, Proudhon’s monetary view remained a theoretical standpoint that Marx had to take seriously and from which he had to demarcate himself.

毋庸赘言，蒲鲁东的劳动货币观具有鲜明的空想性质，但在马克思科学价值理论的形成中，这种货币观却是无法轻视的。这是因为，蒲鲁东劳动货币观有意识地吸收了李嘉图等古典经济学家的价值理论，所以也就营造了一种“科学”的假象。1846年11月1日，俄国作家帕·瓦·安年科夫在致马克思的信中对蒲鲁东《贫困的哲学》一书中的经济学观点表示赞赏,足见其观点的迷惑性。值得一提的是，如果把蒲鲁东在该书中所提炼的货币的两点特性，同马克思在《资本论》第一卷中的相关论述加以对照，两者不乏相似之处。虽然相似并不意味着相同，但或许正是因为意识到这种相似之处，在《资本论》第一卷德文第一版中，马克思才会煞费苦心地将价值形式的分析延展到所谓的“第四种价值形式”上。马克思指出：“如果每一种商品都使自己的自然形式与其他一切商品相对立而成为一般等价形式，那么，一切商品就使一切商品都不具备一般等价形式，从而使它们本身不具备它们的价值量的社会有效表现。”不难发现，从逻辑上看，关于一般等价形式的“普遍化”分析正是直指蒲鲁东等人关于货币的那套幻想。可见，即便在马克思已经制定了科学价值理论的《资本论》时期，蒲鲁东的货币观也依然是马克思需要重视并必须与之划清界限的理论观点。

In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx conducted an initial critique of Proudhon’s monetary view, but Proudhon did not accept it; instead, he continued to elaborate his conception of labor money along the lines of *The Philosophy of Poverty*. In late March 1848, taking advantage of the February Revolution, Proudhon quickly published three pamphlets: *The Solution of the Social Problem*, *Democracy*, and *Credit and Circulation Organization*. Among them, in *The Solution of the Social Problem*, Proudhon regarded precious-metal money, monarchy, and property as the “trinity of monarchy” and identified these three as the true objects that the revolutionary cause initiated in February should negate. Proudhon believed that establishing a bank capable of centralizing all trade activities, issuing banknotes based on labor time, and transforming indirect exchange requiring various intermediaries into direct exchange were the keys to lowering interest rates, dividends, rents, and wages, solving problems such as the shortage of circulating media that plagued France, and also an important means of ensuring that the revolution proceeded peacefully. In summary, Proudhon’s social reform plan was precisely what he emphasized in *Credit and Circulation Organization*: “What we need, what I call for in the name of all workers, is: reciprocity, equivalent exchange, and credit organization.”

在《哲学的贫困》中，马克思对蒲鲁东的货币观进行了初次批判，但蒲鲁东并未接受，而是继续沿着《贫困的哲学》的思路阐发其关于劳动货币的构想。1848年3月下旬，蒲鲁东便借二月革命之势迅速出版了三本小册子：《社会问题的解决》《民主》《信贷和流通组织》。其中，在《社会问题的解决》一书中，蒲鲁东将贵金属货币、王权和所有权视为“君主制的三位一体”,并将这三项指认为二月开创的革命事业所真正应当否定的内容。蒲鲁东认为，成立一家能将所有贸易活动集中起来的银行，发行以劳动时间为基础的银行券，使需要各种中介的间接交换变为直接交换，是降低利率、股息、租金和工资，解决困扰法国流通媒介短缺等诸问题的关键，也是确保革命以和平方式进行下去的重要途径。概括地说，蒲鲁东的社会改革方案正是他在《信贷和流通组织》一书中所强调的，“我们所需要的、我以全体工人名义所呼吁的是：互惠、等价交换和信贷组织”。

More importantly, Proudhon’s labor-money view did not remain merely at the level of theoretical conception. From April 1848 onward, Proudhon began seeking funding from various sources and actively planned to establish the so-called People’s Bank (Exchange Bank). On January 31, 1849, Proudhon’s People’s Bank was notarized by the Paris notary office. On February 11 of the following month, the bank officially opened. This marked the transition of Proudhon’s social reform plan from theoretical conception to preliminary practical action. During the first six weeks of trial operation, Proudhon’s People’s Bank attracted nearly 60,000 customers, with subscribed capital as high as 100,000 francs. However, an unexpected imprisonment not only forced Proudhon to voluntarily close the People’s Bank but also deprived him of the opportunity to test his theoretical conception through practice. In the book *Confessions of a Revolutionary*, completed in prison, Proudhon regarded the practice of the People’s Bank as “the most glorious battle” he had ever participated in, and he firmly believed that “once it is grafted onto the branches of the old society, it can enable the old society to draw entirely new vitality from its principles, thereby gradually transforming the old society.” In summary, for Marx, who was continuously following Proudhon, the rapid transformation of Proudhon’s monetary view from theoretical conception to preliminary practice within a short period undoubtedly provided an important theoretical stimulus. During the critical period for the formation of Marx’s scientific theory of value, that is, from the late 1840s to the early 1850s, this theoretical stimulus was specifically manifested in Marx’s two critiques in the texts *The Poverty of Philosophy* and *Reflections*. For the formation of Marx’s scientific theory of value, both critiques targeted Proudhon’s monetary view based on the theory of constituted value, but their roles and the philosophical significance they presented were quite different.

更为重要的是，蒲鲁东的劳动货币观不只是停留在理论构想层面。从1848年4月起，蒲鲁东开始寻求各方资助，积极筹建所谓的人民银行(交换银行)。1849年1月31日，蒲鲁东的人民银行通过了巴黎公证处的公证。次月11日，银行正式开业。这标志着蒲鲁东的社会改革方案由理论设想落实为初步的实践行动。在试运营的前六个星期内，蒲鲁东的人民银行收获了近六万的客户，预定资本高达十万法郎。不过，突如其来的牢狱之灾，不仅迫使蒲鲁东主动关停人民银行，也使其错失了以实践检验其理论构想的机会。在狱中完成的《一个革命者的自白》一书中，蒲鲁东将人民银行的实践看作其参加过的“最光荣的一场战役”,而且深信，“一旦它嫁接到旧社会的枝芽上，就能使旧社会从它的原则中吸取崭新的生命力，从而使旧社会逐渐得到改造”。综上，对于持续关注蒲鲁东的马克思来说，蒲鲁东的货币观在短期内实现的由理论构想到初步实践的转化，无疑具有重要的理论刺激作用。在马克思形成科学价值论的关键时期，即19世纪40年代末到50年代初，这种理论刺激具体表现为马克思在《哲学的贫困》和《反思》这两个文本中的两次批判。对于马克思科学价值理论的形成来说，这两次批判的对象都是蒲鲁东以构成价值论为基础的货币观，但它们所发挥的作用以及呈现出的哲学意义，却大不相同。

II. Initial Critique and Shift in Standpoint: The Determination of the Critical Theoretical Starting Point of Marx’s Labor Theory of Value

二、初次批判与立场转向：马克思劳动价值论之批判性理论起点的确定

As mentioned earlier, for readers not particularly familiar with political economy, because Proudhon consciously absorbed the value theory of classical economists such as Ricardo, his monetary view acquired a “scientific” appearance. This is one reason why Marx devoted nearly half of *The Poverty of Philosophy* to settling accounts with and critiquing Proudhon’s theory of value. In the strict history of scientific political economy, Proudhon’s theory of value and monetary view might be dismissed as vulgar opinions, but for Marx’s re-examination and reassessment of Ricardo’s value theory, they served as a “useful” negative reference.

如前所述，对于不是特别了解政治经济学的读者来说，由于蒲鲁东有意识地吸收了李嘉图等古典经济学家的价值理论，其货币观取得了一种“科学”的外观。这是马克思在《哲学的贫困》中用了近一半的篇幅来清算和批判蒲鲁东价值论的缘由之一。在严格的科学的政治经济史中，蒲鲁东的价值论和货币观或许是不值一提的庸俗见解，但对于马克思重新审视和评估李嘉图的价值理论来说，却是一个“有益”的反面参照。

We know that before the young Marx could grasp the historical-materialist significance of economic reality, he generally adopted an external critical attitude toward the value theory of classical economics. However, in his treatment of different economists, the young Marx exhibited subtle differences. Because Ricardo more thoroughly implemented the intrinsic labor theory of value, he displayed the most inhuman theoretical trait—complete indifference to the fate of workers—so, compared with other economists such as Smith, the young Marx’s degree of aversion to Ricardo in the *Paris Notebooks* was evidently greater. After the theoretical journey through the *Brussels Notebooks* and the *Manchester Notebooks*, in *The German Ideology*, an important text expounding historical materialism, although Marx had fully accepted the labor theory of value, he still understood bourgeois society primarily through the “window” of Smith, rather than through the “window” of Ricardo. This was to some extent because he was still unable to grasp the deeper implications of the more “harsh” Ricardian theory of value.

我们知道，在青年马克思尚无法领悟经济现实的历史观意义前，他对古典经济学的价值理论总体上是持外在批判态度的。但是，在对待不同经济学家的态度上，青年马克思却有着细微的差别。由于李嘉图更加彻底地贯彻内在劳动价值论，因而呈现出最不人性的理论特质，即对工人死活的完全漠视,所以，相比斯密等其他经济学家，青年马克思在《巴黎笔记》中对李嘉图的反感程度显然要更甚。经过《布鲁塞尔笔记》和《曼彻斯特笔记》的理论跋涉，在《德意志意识形态》这一阐发唯物史观的重要文本中，马克思虽然已经完全接受了劳动价值论，但他主要还是通过斯密的“窗口”,而非李嘉图的“窗口”来理解资产阶级社会的，这在某种程度上正是因为他此时依然无法理解更为“刻薄”的李嘉图价值理论的深层意涵。

The real transformation occurred in Marx’s work critiquing Proudhon, *The Poverty of Philosophy*. When Proudhon, in *The Philosophy of Poverty*, fantasized about using constituted value to solve all social problems once and for all, and emphasized that “anyone’s labor can only purchase articles containing an equivalent amount of value,” he thereby deepened and exposed Smith’s error in an extremely “grandiose” manner. Smith’s error lay in proposing two parallel measures of value: sometimes using the “labor time” necessary to produce a commodity as the measure of value, and sometimes using the “value of labor” as the measure of value. Proudhon’s absurdity, on the other hand, lay in attempting to make the definite “labor time” contained in a product directly equal to the “value of labor.” Proudhon’s conflation of the two measures of value proposed by Smith made Marx more clearly realize that determining the relative value of commodities by labor value conflicts with economic facts, and thus Ricardo’s critique of Smith’s second measure of value was correct. Relatedly, on the basis of critiquing Smith, Ricardo so resolutely affirmed that labor time is the sole measure determining the magnitude of commodity value that, although it reduces humans to “hats,” this is by no means a manifestation of the harshness of Ricardo’s value theory, but rather a revelation of the harshness of “modern economic relations.” “The harshness lies in the fact itself, not in the words that express the fact!” The young Marx had once criticized Ricardo’s value theory for its harsh language, but in his view at this time, it was precisely “a scientific explanation of modern economic life.” This clearly indicates that Marx had now fully shifted to Ricardo’s standpoint in value theory.

真正的转变发生在马克思批判蒲鲁东的著作《哲学的贫困》中。当蒲鲁东在《贫困的哲学》中幻想用构成价值来一劳永逸地解决所有社会问题，并强调“任何人的劳动都只能购买相当于本身所含价值的物品”时，他也就以一种极端“浮夸”的方式加深并暴露了斯密的错误。斯密的错误在于，提出了两种相并列的价值尺度，即时而以生产商品所必要的“劳动时间”为价值尺度，时而又以“劳动价值”为价值尺度；而蒲鲁东的荒谬则在于，试图让产品中包含的一定的“劳动时间”和“劳动价值”直接相等。蒲鲁东把斯密提出的两种价值尺度混为一谈的做法,使马克思更加清楚地认识到，用劳动价值来确定商品相对价值是同经济事实相抵触的，因而李嘉图对斯密所提出的第二种价值尺度的批判是正确的。与此相关联的是，李嘉图在批判斯密的基础上，如此坚决地认定劳动时间是决定商品价值量的唯一尺度，虽然使人降格为“帽子”,但这决不是李嘉图价值理论之刻薄性的显现，而恰恰是“现代经济关系”之刻薄性的展露。“刻薄在于事实本身，而不在于表明事实的字句!”青年马克思曾责难李嘉图的价值理论言词刻薄，但在此时的他看来，它恰恰是“对现代经济生活的科学解释”。这就清楚地表明，马克思此时在价值理论上已经完全转变到李嘉图的立场上了。

In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, the above shift not only provided Marx with a favorable theoretical weapon to refute the theory of constituted value that underlay Proudhon’s view of money, but also contained the following two points of significance. First, it further confirmed the principle of Marx’s historical materialism that takes reality as its starting point. On the surface, unlike the ideologists of German ideology, what Proudhon discussed was not abstract phrases but directly the practical problems of the economy. But in Marx’s view, when Proudhon attempted to use constituted value as the starting point to construct a new social world, he had in fact already departed from the scientific starting point of Ricardo’s theory of value, namely “real society,” and thus inevitably slid into the camp of the ideologists of German ideology. Precisely because of this, Proudhon’s theory of constituted value became an important negative example, which at this time enabled Marx to further clarify the theoretical boundaries of historical materialism and the direction of its expansion: namely, as a philosophical worldview, historical materialism can only provide methodological guidance for the study of reality; at the same time, the development and maturation of historical materialism cannot for a moment depart from the given premise of real society. Second, it anchored the critical theoretical starting point of Marx’s political economy research. As already noted, through the theoretical mediation of Proudhon, Marx at this time was not only able to face squarely Ricardo’s theory of value, which turned people into “hats,” but also to identify the scientific nature of Ricardo’s theory of value relative to Smith’s theory of value. Therefore, in *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx repeatedly emphasized that “Ricardo has scientifically expounded the theory of modern society, i.e., bourgeois society.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 195. [Translator’s note: The English quotation follows the standard MECW translation.] This positioning of Ricardo’s theory of value shows that Marx at this time clearly recognized that whether it was deepening historical materialism as a philosophical methodology or dissecting the political economy of bourgeois society, both had to take Ricardo’s theory of value, the theoretical high point of classical economics, as the critical theoretical starting point. It can be said that this was not only Marx’s self-correction of the theoretical limitations existing in *The German Ideology*, but also an important orientation for the subsequent construction of his scientific theory of value.

在《哲学的贫困》中，上述转向不只为马克思驳斥作为蒲鲁东货币观之基础的构成价值论提供了一个有利的理论武器，还包含了以下两点重要意义：其一，进一步确证了马克思历史唯物主义以现实为出发点的原则。表面上看，蒲鲁东与德意志意识形态理论家不同，其所探讨的并不是抽象的词句，而是直接的经济现实问题。但在马克思看来，当蒲鲁东试图以构成价值为出发点来建造一个新的社会世界时，他其实就已经背离“现实社会”这一李嘉图价值理论的科学出发点了，从而不可避免地滑向了德意志意识形态理论家的阵营。正因为如此，蒲鲁东的构成价值论便成了一个重要的反面示例，它让此时的马克思进一步明确了历史唯物主义的理论边界及其拓展方向，即作为一种哲学世界观，历史唯物主义只能为研究现实提供方法论引导，同时，历史唯物主义的发展及其成熟，须臾不能离开现实社会这一既定前提。其二，锚定马克思政治经济学研究的批判性理论起点。已如前述，通过蒲鲁东的理论中介，马克思此时不仅能够正视把人变成“帽子”的李嘉图的价值理论，而且也辨识出李嘉图价值理论相对于斯密价值理论的科学性所在。因此，在《哲学的贫困》中，马克思一再强调，“李嘉图已科学地阐明作为现代社会即资产阶级社会的理论”。对李嘉图价值理论的此种定位表明，马克思此时已经清楚地认识到，无论是对作为哲学方法论的历史唯物主义的深化，还是对资产阶级社会的政治经济学剖析，都必须以李嘉图的价值理论这一古典经济学的理论制高点为批判性理论起点。可以说，这既是马克思对《德意志意识形态》存在的理论局限的自我纠偏，更是其对后续科学价值理论建构的重要定向。

Unfortunately, in *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx did not fully develop a critical study of Ricardo’s theory of value; instead, in his polemic with Proudhon, he largely “adopted” Ricardo’s views. This shortcoming inevitably caused Marx to retain many of the defects of Ricardo’s theory. In Marx’s critique of Proudhon’s view of money, the above theoretical limitation was very apparent. Since Proudhon regarded precious-metal money as an example of constituted value being determined by labor time, logically, as long as it could be demonstrated that precious-metal money is not determined by labor time, then Proudhon’s entire fantasy about money would collapse. On this point, Ricardo’s quantity theory of money, which deviated from his own theory of value—namely, that the value of money is not determined by the labor time needed to produce it but by the quantity of money—was precisely a negation of Proudhon’s view of money. Historically, not long before, in *The German Ideology*, Marx had already pointed out in the course of criticizing Stirner that precious-metal money “is entirely determined by the cost of production, i.e., by labor.” [9]9 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 264. [Translator’s note: The English quotation follows the standard MECW translation.] However, insisting on this view did not help Marx at this time in his critique of Proudhon’s view of money. Thus, in *The Poverty of Philosophy*, we see the following expression: “Among all commodities, only gold and silver as money are not commodities determined by the cost of production; this is indeed certain, because in circulation gold and silver can be replaced by paper money… Ricardo understood this truth very well… The value of money is determined not by the labor time contained in the material, but only by the law of supply and demand.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 170–171. [Translator’s note: The English quotation follows the standard MECW translation.] This shows that, in order to refute Proudhon’s view of money, Marx uncritically adopted Ricardo’s quantity theory of money, and the resulting consequence was that Marx’s understanding of money at this time inevitably contained major theoretical defects, and his own construction of a scientific theory of value had not yet begun.

遗憾的是，在《哲学的贫困》中，马克思并没有充分展开对李嘉图价值理论的批判性研究，反而在同蒲鲁东的论战中大量“采用”了李嘉图的观点。这一不足之处，使马克思不可避免地保留了许多李嘉图理论的缺陷。在马克思针对蒲鲁东货币观的批判上，上述理论局限表现得十分明显。由于蒲鲁东将贵金属货币视作构成价值由劳动时间所决定的例证，所以从逻辑上看，只要能够论证贵金属货币并非由劳动时间所决定，那么蒲鲁东关于货币的那套幻想便会不攻自破。在这一点上，李嘉图背离其价值理论的货币数量论，即认为货币的价值不是由生产货币所需要的劳动时间决定，而是取决于货币的数量,正好是对蒲鲁东货币观的否定。历史地看，在不久之前的《德意志意识形态》中，马克思还在批判施蒂纳的过程中特别指出，贵金属货币“完全是由生产成本即劳动所决定的”。然而，坚持这种观点无助于马克思此时对蒲鲁东货币观的批判。于是，我们在《哲学的贫困》中看到了这样的表述：“在一切商品中，只有作为货币的金银不是由生产费用来确定的商品；这一点是确实无疑的，因为金银在流通中可以用纸币来代替……李嘉图非常理解这个真理……确定货币价值的不是实物所包含的劳动时间，而只是供求规律。”这表明，为了驳斥蒲鲁东的货币观，马克思不加批判地采用了李嘉图的货币数量论，由此而来的结果是：马克思此时对货币的理解必然存在较大的理论缺陷，而他本人科学价值理论的建构也尚未开始。

In summary, the initial critique of Proudhon’s view of money in *The Poverty of Philosophy* provided an important negative reference for Marx to re-examine and re-evaluate Ricardo’s theory of value, and ultimately to shift to the latter’s standpoint. In this regard, in the formation of Marx’s scientific theory of value, Proudhon’s constituted value played a role similar to the last step of the ladder of thought that Feuerbach played for historical materialism. However, Marx at this time in fact did not yet possess the actual ability to “uproot” Proudhon’s view of money. Precisely because of this, further reflection and critique of Proudhon’s view of money, as an unfinished task, became embedded in Marx’s third study of political economy, and further played a unique mediating role in the formation of Marx’s scientific theory of value.

综上，《哲学的贫困》针对蒲鲁东货币观的初次批判，为马克思重新审视和评估李嘉图的价值理论，并最终转到后者的立场上，提供了重要的反面参照。就此而言，在马克思科学价值理论的形成中，蒲鲁东构成像费尔巴哈之于历史唯物主义的思想之梯的最后一步。然而，马克思此时其实还不具备“连根铲除”蒲鲁东货币观的实际能力。正因为如此，针对蒲鲁东货币观的进一步反思和批判，才会作为一项未竟之事，内嵌于马克思的第三次政治经济学研究之中，并进一步对马克思科学价值理论的形成起到独特的中介性作用。

III. Re-critique and Shift in Perspective: The Deepening of the Methodology of Marx’s Labor Theory of Value

三、再批判与视角转换：马克思劳动价值论之方法论的深化

Because Marx’s initial critique of Proudhon’s view of money itself in *The Poverty of Philosophy* was not successful, and because Proudhon’s conception of labor money, after *The Philosophy of Poverty*, quickly transformed into preliminary practice, combined with the extensive debates over monetary issues between the Currency School and the Banking School triggered again by the economic depression of 1847, and the fact that the workers’ movement increasingly declined as the bourgeois social economy gradually prospered after the revolution of 1848, when Marx began his third study of political economy in September 1850, the monetary issue became one of his main entry points. [11]11 The revolution of 1848 refers to a wave of revolutions across Europe in 1848, including the February Revolution in France and the March Revolutions in the German states, which led to the establishment of the Second French Republic and significant political upheaval. The Currency School and the Banking School were two rival British schools of monetary thought in the 19th century, debating the regulation of banknote issuance and the role of precious-metal reserves. The *London Notebooks* are a famous product of this period. Among them, the article *Reflections*, written in March 1851, as an article in Marx’s *London Notebooks* reflecting his stage-by-stage research results, centrally displays the complex context in which Marx’s re-critique of Proudhon’s view of money was intertwined with his critique of bourgeois economists such as the Currency School and the Banking School (centered on reflection and critique of Ricardo’s quantity theory of money), and its unique theoretical value.

由于《哲学的贫困》中马克思对蒲鲁东货币观本身的初次批判并不成功，而蒲鲁东的劳动货币构想在《贫困的哲学》后又迅速完成了向初步实践的转化，再加上通货学派和银行学派因1847年经济萧条再度围绕货币问题而产生的广泛争论、工人运动因1848年革命后资产阶级社会经济逐渐繁荣而日益走向低谷等因素，当马克思于1850年9月开启第三次政治经济学研究时，货币问题就成为他的主要切入点之一。《伦敦笔记》是这一时期的著名成果。其中，写于1851年3月的《反思》一文，作为马克思《伦敦笔记》中反映其阶段性研究成果的一篇文章，集中展现了马克思针对蒲鲁东货币观的再批判同针对通货学派和银行学派等资产阶级经济学家的批判(中心是围绕李嘉图货币数量论的反思与批判)交织在一起的复杂语境及其独特的理论价值。

First, it must be clarified that, compared with the initial critique in *The Poverty of Philosophy*, the re-critique of Proudhon’s view of money in *Reflections* was by no means a “repetition of the same old tune,” but rather an advancement and deepening of the critique itself. From the perspective of Marx’s theoretical progress at this time, Ricardo’s quantity theory of money was no longer a theoretical tool that could be directly “adopted,” but precisely an object that needed to be settled and criticized. This shift in Marx at this time was, on the one hand, because in the early 1850s he saw the practical bankruptcy of the English and Scottish bank legislation, which was built on the basis of Ricardo’s quantity theory of money; on the other hand, it benefited from his own study of the debate between the Currency School and the Banking School. Specifically, in monetary theory, the Currency School and the Banking School were basically opposed to each other. The Currency School followed Ricardo’s quantity theory of money, holding that an increase or decrease in the quantity of money inversely affects the value of money, and, on the basis of equating the two different functions of money—the means of circulation (state paper money and its circulation) and the means of payment (banknotes and their circulation)—firmly defended the obligation to exchange banknotes for precious-metal money, advocating that the issuance of banknotes be regulated entirely according to the laws of currency circulation. In contrast, the Banking School took a critical stance toward Ricardo’s quantity theory of money, holding that an increase or decrease in the quantity of money is not the cause of changes in the value of money or prices, and, on the basis of distinguishing the different functions of money, denied the sufficiency of exchanging banknotes for precious-metal money, emphasizing that the former is credit money performing the function of a means of payment, while the latter is money performing the function of a means of circulation. Therefore, the circulation of banknotes has its own laws, and their issuance should not be regulated according to the laws of currency. It is not difficult to see that whether to support Ricardo’s quantity theory of money was precisely a focal point of debate between these two schools.

首先需要明确的是，相比《哲学的贫困》中的初次批判，《反思》中马克思对蒲鲁东货币观的再批判，绝不是一种“老调重弹”,而是批判本身的推进与深化。从马克思此时的理论推进看，李嘉图的货币数量论已经不再是可以直接“采用”的理论工具，而恰恰是需要清算和批判的对象。马克思此时的这种转变，一方面是因为他在19世纪50年代初看到了英格兰和苏格兰银行立法在实践层面上的破产，而这种实践正是建立在李嘉图货币数量论的基础之上的；另一方面则是得益于他本人对通货学派和银行学派之间论争的研究。具体而言，在货币理论方面，通货学派和银行学派基本上是相互对立的。通货学派奉行李嘉图的货币数量论，认为货币数量的增减反比例地影响货币的价值，同时，在将货币具有的流通手段(国家纸币及其流通)和支付手段(银行券及其流通)这两种相异的职能等而视之的基础上，坚决捍卫银行券兑换贵金属货币的义务，主张完全按照货币流通规律来调节银行券的发行。与此相反，银行学派则对李嘉图的货币数量论持批判态度，认为货币数量的增减并非货币价值和物价变动的原因，同时，在区分货币不同职能的基础上，否定银行券同贵金属货币相兑换的充分性，强调前者是执行支付手段的信用货币，后者则是执行流通手段的货币，因此，银行券的流通有其自身的规律，其发行不应按照货币规律来调节。不难发现，是否支持李嘉图的货币数量论正是这两派争论的一个焦点问题。

It is precisely for this reason that the above-mentioned research further shook Marx’s earlier identification with Ricardo’s quantity theory of money, prompting him to consciously draw a line of demarcation from Ricardo’s theory in the *London Notebooks*. In Notebook IV of the *London Notebooks*, when Marx once again directly confronted Ricardo’s monetary theory, he had by then clearly realized that Ricardo’s quantity theory of money contradicted his own theory of value, and that Ricardo’s understanding of the value of money involved a problem of circular reasoning—sometimes holding that the value of money is determined by its quantity, and at other times saying that the quantity of money is determined by its value. It is conceivable that once Ricardo’s quantity theory of money itself became an object that Marx needed to settle and criticize at this time, then Marx’s re-critique of Proudhon’s monetary views in *Reflections* would inevitably play a role and have a significance different from the critique in *The Poverty of Philosophy*. In summary, this can mainly be summarized in the following two points.

正因为如此，上述研究进一步动摇了马克思此前对李嘉图货币数量论的认同，促使他在《伦敦笔记》中有意识地同李嘉图的理论划清界限。在《伦敦笔记》的第IV笔记本中，当马克思再次直接面对李嘉图的货币理论时，他此时已经清楚地意识到，李嘉图的货币数量论同其价值理论是相矛盾的，并且，李嘉图在对货币价值的理解上，存在着循环论证的问题，即时而认为货币价值由它的数量决定，时而又说货币的数量由它的价值决定。可想而知，一旦李嘉图的货币数量论本身成了马克思此时需要清算和批判的对象，那么《反思》中马克思针对蒲鲁东货币观的再批判，也必然会发挥出不同于《哲学的贫困》中的批判的作用和意义。概括地说，这主要可以归纳为以下两点。

First, the reflection on and critique of Proudhon’s monetary views and his banking reform practices were embedded within Marx’s critical study of the Banking School. During the period of the *London Notebooks*, Marx had clearly recognized that the root cause of economic crises did not lie in the sphere of circulation, and correspondingly, crises could by no means be eradicated through any adjustments within the sphere of circulation. However, regardless of how correctly the Banking School exposed the theoretical problems of the Currency School, the ideas of both schools for resolving economic crises were consistent, namely, to adjust the monetary system based on the sphere of circulation. And this was precisely the real essence of Proudhon’s monetary views and his banking reform practices. In this sense, the Banking School (as well as the Currency School and other bourgeois economists) provided a certain theoretical justification for Proudhon’s monetary views and his banking reform practices through their approach to solving economic crises. Therefore, for Marx at this time, the isomorphism in the deep logic between the Banking School and Proudhon’s theory undoubtedly made him confront the Banking School with a more cautious attitude. This was indeed the case. In Notebook IV of the *London Notebooks*, Marx wrote in his excerpts from William Jacob: “Only when labor can freely exchange for money, that is, only when it is linked to the system of wage labor, is the monetary system itself pure.” This clearly shows that although the Banking School’s distinction between the different functions of money provided Marx with much inspiration for overcoming Ricardo’s quantity theory of money, he always maintained independent thinking. Therefore, in his understanding of the monetary question, Marx did not follow the Banking School into a purely quantitative dimension, but delved into the essence of social relations behind money, and in this process, gradually arrived at a more profound view of money than that of the Banking School.

其一，对蒲鲁东货币观及其银行改革实践的反思和批判，内嵌于马克思对银行学派的批判性研究当中。在《伦敦笔记》时期，马克思已经清楚地认识到，经济危机的根本原因并不存在于流通领域，相应地，危机也必然无法通过对流通领域内的任何调整而得到根除。但是，不管银行学派如何正确地揭露通货学派的理论问题，两派化解经济危机的思路却都是一致的，即立足流通领域调整货币制度。而这也是蒲鲁东货币观及其银行改革实践的真实要义。在这个意义上，银行学派(也包括通货学派等资产阶级经济学家)对于经济危机的解决思路，恰恰为蒲鲁东的货币观及其银行改革实践提供了一定的理论论证。因此，对于此时的马克思来说，银行学派同蒲鲁东的理论在深层逻辑上的同构性，无疑会令他以更为审慎的态度面对银行学派。事实的确如此。在《伦敦笔记》的第IV笔记本中，马克思在对威廉·杰科布的摘录中写道：“只有劳动可以自由交换货币，也就是说，只有同雇佣劳动制度联系在一起，货币制度本身才是纯粹的。”这就清楚地表明，银行学派对货币不同职能的区分虽然为马克思克服李嘉图的货币数量论提供了很多启发，但他始终保持着独立的思考。所以，在对货币问题的理解上，马克思没有跟随银行学派陷入纯粹量的维度，而是深入货币背后的社会关系本质，并在这一过程中，逐渐得出比银行学派更为深刻的货币观点。

Second, through comparison with the Banking School, Marx more precisely located the theoretical crux of both the Banking School and Proudhon, thereby truly entering the horizon of the historical materialist theory of relations of production. After Marx, through his study of the debate between the two schools, gradually broke free from Ricardo’s quantity theory of money and gained a deeper understanding of money, he logically turned in *Reflections* to settling the theoretical errors of the Banking School and Proudhon. The Banking School stopped at the sphere of circulation, distinguishing between capital and money only from the quantitative dimension of whether they could yield interest: in “genuine trade,” i.e., trade between industrialists, money could yield interest and was therefore capital; whereas in trade between industrialists and consumers, money could not yield interest and was therefore money. Thus, starting from the case where trade between industrialists in a crisis could not be fully realized, the Banking School naturally asserted that what was lacking in a crisis was capital, not money. In response to the Banking School’s view, Marx refuted in *Reflections*: “The currency in genuine trade and the currency in the exchange of revenue with commodities, i.e., a part of capital,” have no essential difference; both are money performing the function of a means of circulation. Going further, from the perspective of the sphere of circulation, the whole problem in a crisis period is that capital in the form of commodities cannot be realized into money. “What is actually lacking is currency, not capital.” However, the root of the problem does not lie in the sphere of circulation, so one must not, like bourgeois economists, superficially attribute the lack of money to “some particular form of the monetary system,” because “the monetary system is itself based on the existing mode of production.” “In the existence of the monetary system is contained not only the possibility of the separation [of commodities and money], but already the reality of this separation, and this situation proves that it is precisely because capital coincides with money that the condition in which capital cannot realize its value already exists with the existence of capital, and hence with the existence of the entire organization of production.” That is to say, the entire organization of production based on capital is the real root of crises, while the monetary crisis at the level of circulation is merely an external manifestation of the inherent contradictions of this relation of production. From this perspective, any adjustment to the monetary system based on the sphere of circulation can only be a reformist measure that does not touch the fundamental problem.

其二，在同银行学派的相互比较中，马克思更为精准地定位到银行学派与蒲鲁东的理论症结，从而真正地进入历史唯物主义的生产关系理论视域。当马克思通过对两派争论的研究逐渐摆脱李嘉图的货币数量论，并对货币有了更为深刻的认识之后，他便在《反思》中合乎逻辑地转向对银行学派和蒲鲁东的理论错误的清算。银行学派止步于流通领域，只是从能否生息这一数量关系维度来区分资本和货币：在“真正贸易中”,即实业家与实业家的贸易中，货币能够生息，因而是资本；而在实业家与消费者的贸易中，货币不能生息，因而是货币。由此，从危机中实业家与实业家的贸易无法全部实现的事例出发，银行学派很自然地断言，危机中缺乏的是资本，而非货币。针对银行学派的观点，马克思在《反思》中批驳道，“在真正贸易中的通货和在收入同商品即一部分资本相交换中的通货”,并不存在本质的差别，两者都是执行流通手段的货币。更进一步，从流通领域看，危机时期的全部问题，在于以商品形式存在的资本不能兑现为货币。“事实上缺乏的是通货，而不是资本。”然而，问题的根源并不存在于流通领域，所以绝不能像资产阶级经济学家那样，将货币的缺乏肤浅地归咎于“货币制度的某种特殊形式”,因为“货币制度又以现有生产方式为基础”。“在货币制度的存在中不仅包含着[商品与货币]分离的可能性，而且已经存在着这种分离的现实性，并且这种情况证明，正是由于资本同货币相一致，资本不能实现其价值这一状况已经随着资本的存在，因而随着整个生产组织的存在而存在了。”这就是说，以资本为基础的整个生产组织才是危机的真正根源，而流通层面上的货币危机不过是这一生产关系固有矛盾的外在表现形式。以此来看，立足流通领域对货币制度的任何调整都只能是不触及根本问题的改良主义措施。

Immediately afterward, Marx finally turned the spearhead of his critique once again against Proudhon and others. In *Reflections*, Marx evaluated with great indignation that Proudhon, Gray, and others were “jackasses” who only knew how to follow slavishly behind bourgeois economists. Proudhon, Gray, and the entire bourgeois economists including the Banking School were all birds of a feather; they all “want to retain money, but without allowing money to have the attributes of money.” In terms of length, these few words, though not as substantial as *The Poverty of Philosophy*, if combined with the above reflection and critique by Marx of the Banking School and other bourgeois economists, precisely strike at the “Achilles’ heel” of Proudhon and his ilk. What Marx wanted to show here is that Proudhon and others never transcended the narrow bourgeois horizon; they were always unable to analyze the essence of bourgeois society, and thus could only understand money within the sphere of circulation and seek social reform plans there. When the critique of Proudhon’s monetary views advanced to this level, it indicated that, compared with the period of *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx was no longer confined to the spheres of exchange, circulation, and distribution within social relations, but had truly penetrated into the dimension of social relations of production. It is also in this sense that Marx’s critique of Proudhon’s monetary views in *Reflections* constitutes an advancement and deepening of the initial critique in *The Poverty of Philosophy*.

紧接着，马克思终于将批判的矛头再次对准蒲鲁东等人。在《反思》中，马克思十分愤怒地评价道，蒲鲁东和格雷等人是“蠢驴”,他们只知道跟在资产阶级经济学家后面亦步亦趋。蒲鲁东、格雷和包括银行学派在内的整个资产阶级经济学家，其实是一丘之貉，他们都“想保留货币，但又不让货币具有货币的属性”。在篇幅上，这寥寥数语虽然不及《哲学的贫困》那般厚重，但如果结合上述马克思对银行学派等资产阶级经济学家的反思和批判，那么此处针对蒲鲁东等人的批判，恰恰直击了蒲鲁东之流的“阿基里斯之踵”。在这里，马克思想要表明的是，蒲鲁东等人从来没有超出狭隘的资产阶级视野，他们始终无法透析资产阶级社会的本质，因而只能停留在流通领域理解货币并寻求社会改革方案。对蒲鲁东货币观的批判推进到这一层次，也就表明，相比《哲学的贫困》时期，马克思此时已不再拘泥于社会关系中的交换、流通和分配领域了，而是真正深入社会的生产关系维度。也正是在这个意义上，《反思》中马克思针对蒲鲁东货币观的批判，才构成对《哲学的贫困》中的初次批判的推进和深化。

Overall, the re-critique of Proudhon’s monetary views in *Reflections* enabled Marx to truly open up the horizon of the historical materialist theory of relations of production, further deepening the methodological foundation for Marx’s construction of a scientific theory of value. For Marx, if he could not complete the shift in perspective on social historical views from exchange and circulation to relations of production, then it would be difficult to break through the bourgeois horizon that constrained Proudhon throughout his life, let alone delve into the capitalist production process and formulate a scientific theory of value. In this regard, the re-critique of Proudhon’s monetary views in *Reflections* is a crucial step and a necessary theoretical prelude to Marx’s eventual construction of his own scientific theory of value in *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. First Part*, and its significance in the history of thought needs to be fully recognized and grasped.

总体而言，《反思》中针对蒲鲁东货币观的再次批判，使马克思真正开辟了历史唯物主义的生产关系理论视域，进一步深化了马克思建构科学价值理论的方法论基础。对于马克思来说，如果无法在社会历史观上完成从交换、流通向生产关系的视角转换，那么也很难突破钳制蒲鲁东毕生的资产阶级视野，更遑论深入资本主义的生产过程，制定科学的价值理论了。就此而言，《反思》中针对蒲鲁东货币观的再批判，是马克思最终在《政治经济学批判。第一分册》中建构起自身科学价值理论的关键一步和必要的理论前奏，其思想史意义需要得到充分的认识和把握。

IV. Conclusion

四、结论

Based on the above analysis, we can draw the following conclusions: First, although Proudhon and his school may seem insignificant today, the struggle between Marx and Proudhon’s monetary views played a very important role in the construction of Marx’s scientific theory of value. Therefore, deepening the study of the formation process of Marx’s scientific theory of value requires us first to change the current situation of generally neglecting the Proudhon factor.

基于上述分析，我们可以得出如下结论：第一，蒲鲁东及其学派在今天看来的确是微不足道的，但马克思与蒲鲁东货币观的斗争对马克思科学价值理论的建构起到了十分重要的作用。因此，深化对马克思科学价值理论形成过程的研究，需要我们首先改变普遍忽视蒲鲁东因素这一现状。

Second, taking *The Poverty of Philosophy* and *Reflections* as the focus, an examination of Marx’s two critiques of Proudhon’s conception of money reveals that these two critiques play very different roles and have distinct philosophical significance. For the formulation of Marx’s scientific theory of value, the most important significance of the initial critique in *The Poverty of Philosophy* is that it caused Marx to publicly turn to Ricardo’s theory of value, thereby establishing the critical theoretical starting point of Marx’s scientific theory of value, namely, Ricardo’s theory of value; the re-critique in *Reflections* advanced and deepened the initial critique in *The Poverty of Philosophy*, presenting the shift in Marx’s perspective on social history from exchange and circulation to relations of production, further deepening the methodological foundation for Marx’s construction of a scientific theory of value. The theoretical progress achieved through these two critiques laid a solid foundation for the construction of Marx’s scientific theory of value.

第二，以《哲学的贫困》和《反思》为中心，考察马克思对蒲鲁东货币观的两次批判，能够发现，这两次批判发挥着大不相同的作用，具有不同的哲学意义。《哲学的贫困》中的初次批判，对于马克思科学价值理论的制定来说，最为重要的意义在于使马克思公开转向李嘉图的价值理论，如此便确定了马克思科学价值理论的批判性理论起点，即李嘉图价值理论；《反思》中的再批判，推进并深化了《哲学的贫困》中的初次批判，呈现了马克思在社会历史观上所实现的由交换、流通向生产关系的研究视角转换，进一步深化了马克思建构科学价值理论的方法论基础。这两次批判所实现的理论进展，为马克思科学价值理论的建构奠定了坚实的基础。

Third, given that the scientific labor theory of value is the basis of Marx’s theory of surplus value, it must also be recognized that the two critiques in *The Poverty of Philosophy* and *Reflections* simultaneously laid an important theoretical foundation for Marx’s later complete mastery of the entire content of the historical materialist concept of relations of production, his full grasp of the capitalist production process, and his detailed exposure of the exploitative nature of capitalist society. In this regard, these two critiques play an important “bridging” role in the maturation of Marx’s later historical materialist philosophy and political economy research.

第三，鉴于科学的劳动价值论是马克思剩余价值理论的基础，因此也要看到，《哲学的贫困》和《反思》中的两次批判，同时还为马克思以后彻底掌握历史唯物主义生产关系概念的全部内容，完整把握资本主义生产过程，详尽揭露资本主义社会的剥削本质，奠定了重要的理论基础。就此而言，这两次批判对马克思后期历史唯物主义哲学和政治经济学研究的成熟，具有一种重要的“桥梁”作用。

Fourth, retracing and rethinking the formation process of Marx’s scientific theory of value is not a purely intellectual-historical archaeology, but an attempt to reproduce the complexity of the formation process of Marx’s scientific theory of value and to comprehend the intellectual wisdom and value of Marx’s philosophical methodological transformation that shines behind it. The process by which Marx gradually constructed his own scientific theory of value through the theoretical mediating link of criticizing Proudhon’s conception of money inspires us that, in order to better bring Marx’s scientific theory of value into the contemporary era, it is necessary to directly confront the series of questions and challenges posed to Marx’s labor theory of value by the current development of artificial intelligence. Of course, the prerequisite remains a profound grasp of the philosophical methodology behind Marx’s scientific theory of value, namely, historical materialism.

第四，回溯和重思马克思科学价值理论的形成历程，不是纯粹的思想史考古，而是试图再现马克思科学价值理论形成过程之复杂性，领悟其背后闪烁的马克思哲学方法论变革的思想智慧及价值。马克思通过批判蒲鲁东的货币观这一理论中介环节，逐步建构自身科学价值理论的过程，启发我们，要使马克思科学价值理论更好地走向当代，需要直面当下人工智能发展向马克思劳动价值论提出的一系列质疑和挑战。当然，前提依然是建立在对马克思科学价值理论背后的哲学方法论即历史唯物主义的深刻把握之上。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗